Discussion Title: Should the US Government commit to a Green New Deal?

1. The US Government should commit to a Green New Deal.
1.1. Con: The Green New Deal would hurt the US economy.
1.1.1. Con: The Green New Deal proposes to guarantee workers jobs paying [$15/hr](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/12/21/18144138/green-new-deal-alexandria-ocasio-cortez), which is likely to improve the US economy.
1.1.1.1. Pro: Having more people in better paying jobs [boosts consumer spending](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marginalpropensitytoconsume.asp).
1.1.1.1.1. Con: A 2018 study published in the American Economic Review [provides](https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2018/09/28/how-higher-minimum-wages-impact-employment/#2e2c86101e7d) new evidence that increases in the minimum wage reduce employment in the long run; which in turn can have a significant impact on consumer spending.
1.1.1.1.2. Con: Evidence from the fast food industry in the United States [demonstrates](https://www.businessinsider.com/fast-food-getting-more-expensive-minimum-wages-rise-2019-1#targetText=The%20rising%20prices%20come%20as,than%20double%20its%20current%20rate.) that an increase in minimum wages leads to an increase in the prices of goods and services; this is likely to lead to fewer people being able to afford them, and hence negatively impact consumer spending.
1.1.1.1.2.1. Con: Between 1980 and 2000, wage growth was not a good predictor of inflation \([Mehra, p.41](https://www.richmondfed.org/-/media/richmondfedorg/publications/research/economic_quarterly/2000/summer/pdf/mehra.pdf)\).
1.1.1.1.3. Pro: When people have more [disposable income](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_and_discretionary_income) as a result of higher wages, they will [spend more](https://www.thebalance.com/consumer-spending-definition-and-determinants-3305917) on goods and services.
1.1.1.1.3.1. Pro: Almost [two-thirds](https://www.thebalance.com/consumer-spending-definition-and-determinants-3305917) of consumer spending is on services, like real estate, health care and insurance, which increases peoples' standard of living. Hence, an increase in disposable income is likely to lead to a further improvement in standard of living.
1.1.1.2. Pro: If people are guaranteed a job paying $15/hr, then other employers paying below that will be forced to increase their wages to remain competitive.
1.1.1.2.1. Pro: [Talented employees](https://www.inc.com/john-boitnott/7-reasons-you-should-pay-your-employees-above-average-salaries.html) will want to seek work with employers that pay higher wages \($15/hr\). In the post-GND environment, these employees will benefit because they will either take up the $15/hr jobs, or use this standard to boost their bargaining power.
1.1.1.3. Pro: When people have higher paying jobs, they are likely to make investments, which in turn will benefit the economy.
1.1.1.4. Pro: Improved wages improve [job satisfaction](https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ER-03-2017-0071/full/html), which converts into a financial benefit for employers because it increases employee [productivity](https://www.inc.com/samuel-edwards/examining-the-relationship-between-workplace-satisfaction-and-productivity.html).
1.1.1.4.1. Pro: On average productivity increases by [31%](https://www.inc.com/samuel-edwards/examining-the-relationship-between-workplace-satisfaction-and-productivity.html) when employees are happy or satisfied.
1.1.1.4.2. Con: The positive correlation between satisfied employees and productivity is very small \([Robbins, p.39](http://homepages.se.edu/cvonbergen/files/2013/01/Happy-Workers-Arent-Necessarily-Productive-Workers2.pdf)\).
1.1.1.4.3. Con: The nature of the relationship between satisfaction and productivity is highly contested. According to some studies the causal relationship between satisfaction and productivity is the reverse: productive workers are satisfied workers \([Robbins, p.40-41](http://homepages.se.edu/cvonbergen/files/2013/01/Happy-Workers-Arent-Necessarily-Productive-Workers2.pdf)\).
1.1.1.5. Con: For refinery operators, this represents a 50% wage [cut](https://work.chron.com/oil-gas-industry-salaries-4347.html).
1.1.2. Con: The Green New Deal creates [jobs](https://www.thebalance.com/green-new-deal-4582071) in areas including installing solar panels, retrofitting coastal infrastructure, and manufacturing electric vehicles.
1.1.2.1. Pro: It is estimated that the Green New Deal would create up to [20 million](https://www.thebalance.com/green-new-deal-4582071) new green-centered jobs.
1.1.2.1.1. Pro: [Studies](https://psmag.com/economics/will-the-green-new-deal-work-heres-what-the-research-says) have generally found that green investments create more jobs than they eliminate because a lot of infrastructure needs to be built to make the economy carbon-free.
1.1.2.2. Con: Labor unions have voiced [concerns](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/us/politics/green-new-deal.html) that jobs in the renewable-energy sector won't be as high paying or as plentiful as those in the oil and gas sector.
1.1.2.2.1. Con: -> See 1.1.1.
1.1.2.2.2. Pro: Oil and gas workers are among the highest [paid](https://www.energyindepth.org/oil-and-gas-workers-among-the-best-paid-in-america/) in America.
1.1.2.3. Con: The Green New Deal promises to create jobs, but it does not [identify the specifics](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/01/25/the-green-new-deal-promises-jobs-but-workers-need-to-be-ready-to-fill-them/) that will be needed to make workers prepared for the new jobs.
1.1.2.3.1. Pro: The Green New Deal does not include plans for [education and training](http://inthesetimes.com/features/green-new-deal-worker-transition-jobs-plan.html) that would harmonize with the need to develop new labor force capabilities for the emerging green economy.
1.1.2.3.2. Con: The Green New Deal is a short document, with '[more breadth than detail](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/climate/green-new-deal.html)'. Future specifics can come in subsequent legislation.
1.1.2.3.2.1. Pro: Bernie Sanders' more detailed [plan](https://www.vox.com/2019/8/22/20827396/bernie-sanders-2020-climate-policy-green-new-deal) relies on income taxes from new jobs, lawsuits and higher taxes against emitters and reductions in military expenditure.
1.1.2.3.3. Pro: Even supporters of the Green New Deal resolution job guarantee [point out](https://www.alleghenyfront.org/green-new-deal-and-the-promise-of-jobs/) that it is unclear how many jobs it will create, what sectors those jobs will be in, what the wages of those jobs will be, and how long implementation of the program is likely to take.
1.1.3. Pro: Communities that rely on natural resource extraction will be disproportionately hurt by job losses and decreased tax [revenue](https://hbr.org/2019/02/what-would-the-green-new-deal-mean-for-businesses).
1.1.3.1. Con: The [climate crisis](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-green-new-deal-cost_n_5c0042b2e4b027f1097bda5b) itself will cause [tens of billions of dollars](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-23/americans-will-pay-billions-more-for-climate-change-and-that-s-the-best-case) worth of damage to American homes, communities and infrastructure each year.
1.1.3.1.1. Pro: Climate change has already cost the US $350 billion over the last decade \([Government Accountability Office, p.1](https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/687466.pdf)\).
1.1.3.1.2. Pro: By 2050, the cost of climate change in the US is projected to be [$35 billion per year](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/6-ways-to-prepare-your-finances-for-climate-change-2016-12-20).
1.1.4. Pro: The cost of upgrading all existing buildings to maximum energy efficiency \(as mentioned in the [current GND proposal](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729033/Green-New-Deal-FINAL.pdf)\) would [significantly exceed the benefits](https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/432105-the-green-new-deal-is-a-pipe-dream-not-a-serious-policy-proposal) for recently constructed buildings.
1.1.4.1. Pro: According to a paper by energy technology company Siemens, the most prohibitive factor against upgrading the energy efficiency of buildings is the immense cost of the project and lack of funding [\(2010, p. 3\)](https://www.nlc.org/sites/default/files/The-Economics-of-Energy-Upgrades.pdf).
1.1.4.2. Con: In a long enough time frame, the cost of upgrading to maximum energy efficiency is going to be [overtaken](https://www.energy.gov/articles/new-energysavergov-save-money-saving-energy#targetText=The%20bottom%20line%20is%20this,ones%20found%20on%20EnergySaver.gov.) by the returns of the investment through money saved each year.
1.1.5. Pro: The Green New Deal is too expensive to implement.
1.1.5.1. Con: The GND requires a huge number of construction jobs, installation jobs, maintenance jobs, manufacturing jobs, and all of the jobs that support them. Many of these will be domestic, so a huge amount of [the cost will actually be recognized as income](https://medium.com/otherlab-news/green-new-deal-how-much-does-fixing-climate-change-cost-the-us-d542bb9e67c8) for Americans.
1.1.5.2. Pro: Even newer versions of the Green New Deal involve significant [taxation](https://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/04/08/seize-guns-from-angry-people-and-reduce-firearm-violence/#192b3b121a9c), due to the high costs of its policies.
1.1.5.2.1. Pro: Even the newer versions of the GND proposed by some US politicians involve significant [taxation](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-climatechange/americans-demand-climate-action-reuters-poll-idUSKCN1TR15W), which means that the support of the American population towards the implementation of this policy is likely to be [narrow](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/green-new-deal-tax-poll_n_5c54c97ce4b08710475376b4).
1.1.5.2.1.1. Pro: Front-runner candidate [Joe Biden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden) has pitched a $1.7 trillion plan to zero out emissions by 2050 that would be financed in part by [repealing](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-climatechange/americans-demand-climate-action-reuters-poll-idUSKCN1TR15W) Trump’s tax cuts.
1.1.5.2.1.2. Pro: [Elizabeth Warren](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren) has pitched a $2 trillion plan to be paid for through [higher corporate taxes](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-climatechange/americans-demand-climate-action-reuters-poll-idUSKCN1TR15W) to achieve the goal of quickly eliminating U.S. carbon emissions by replacing fossil fuels with clean energy.
1.1.5.2.1.3. Con: -> See 1.1.2.3.2.1.
1.1.5.3. Pro: The former director of the nonpartisan [Congressional Budget Office](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_Office) estimates that the Green New Deal could cost as much as [$93 trillion](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/green-new-deal-would-cost-93-trillion-or-600g-per-household-study-says).
1.1.5.3.1. Con: This cost is spread out over a nine year [period](https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-green-new-deal-scope-scale-and-implications/), meaning the costs to the taxpayer are less drastic.
1.1.5.3.1.1. Con: The US federal budget for the fiscal year 2019 [is](https://www.itsuptous.org/blog/breaking-down-us-federal-budget-fiscal-year-2019) $4.4 trillion. Even with generous estimates, the US economy cannot withstand an annual average cost of $10 trillion dollars.
1.1.5.3.1.1.1. Con: The US budget for 2019 may not be reflective of future budgets.
1.1.5.3.1.1.1.1. Pro: The US can engage in more borrowing to support the Green New Deal.
1.1.5.3.1.1.1.1.1. Con: The US has over $22 trillion in [debt](https://www.thebalance.com/the-u-s-debt-and-how-it-got-so-big-3305778). It is unlikely that it can sustainably borrow more due to lenders demanding higher interest rates, due to the increased risk.
1.1.5.3.1.1.1.2. Pro: The US can raise taxation rates to pay for the Green New Deal.
1.1.5.3.1.1.1.2.1. Con: The Green New Deal includes implementation of [higher taxes](https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/glimpse-what-the-green-new-deal-would-cost-taxpayers) and a [reduction in tax cuts](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/29/bottom-line-green-new-deal/), which would not be supported by the American population.
1.1.5.3.1.1.1.2.1.1. Con: Taxation is necessarily a form of government involvement in the market, but is used to fund projects which benefit the American people.
1.1.5.3.1.1.1.2.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.5.2.1.
1.1.5.3.1.1.1.2.1.3. Con: Most Americans support increasing taxes on the [wealthy](https://fortune.com/2019/02/04/support-for-tax-increase-on-wealthy-americans-poll/).
1.1.5.3.1.1.1.2.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.3.2.1.
1.1.5.3.1.1.1.3. Pro: The US can [cut](https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2019/02/08/what-you-should-know-about-the-green-new-deals/#3ef490612389) funding \(e.g. military\) for other programs to pay for the Green New Deal.
1.1.5.3.1.1.1.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.3.2.1.
1.1.5.3.1.1.1.4. Pro: When there is a national need \(as there is with climate change\), often extreme steps need to be taken. During World War II, the US introduced a 94% [tax](https://moneywise.com/a/financial-facts-about-world-war-ii) on high incomes.
1.1.5.3.2. Con: Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez estimated it will cost [$10 trillion](https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-says-green-new-deal-cost-10-trillion-2019-6?r=US&IR=T). As she is one of the people who drafted the bill, she may have a better idea of the total costs associated with it.
1.1.5.3.2.1. Pro: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has an [economics degree](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/alexandria-ocasiocortez-democrats-election-new-york-bronx-queens-socialist-midterms-joe-crowley-a8419111.html). This probably improved her competency in assessing the costs of the draft bill.
1.1.5.3.2.1.1. Con: If the criteria for acceptance is economic experience, one must believe in the estimates provided by an expert who has led the Congressional Budget Office; the Office [has](https://www.cbo.gov/about/organization-and-staffing) 9 specialized economic divisions, and has some of the most renowned economists in the world on its [panel of advisers](https://www.cbo.gov/about/processes/panel-economic-advisers).
1.1.5.3.3. Con: Considering the threat climate change poses towards [humanity](https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/), the Green New Deal is worth the cost.
1.1.5.3.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.3.1.
1.1.5.3.3.2. Pro: In recent years, [thousands of people](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-climate-change-deaths_n_5c101e14e4b0ac5371799b1c) have died during, or as a consequence of, extreme weather tied to climate change. Climate change thus poses a [threat](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2201697-destruction-of-nature-is-as-big-a-threat-to-humanity-as-climate-change/) to the survival of humanity.
1.1.5.3.3.3. Pro: According to the World Health Organization \(WHO\) estimates, climate change will lead to about [250,000](https://www.livescience.com/64535-climate-change-health-deaths.html) deaths each year between 2030 and 2050, from factors such as malnutrition, heat stress and malaria.
1.1.5.3.3.3.1. Pro: Without radical action, climate change will result in [350,000,000](https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf) people being exposed to deadly heat stress by 2050 \(p.2\).
1.1.5.3.3.4. Pro: It is believed that there will be up to [1 billion](https://www.climateforesight.eu/migrations/environmental-migrants-up-to-1-billion-by-2050/) environmental migrants by 2050, if climate change is not prevented.
1.1.5.3.3.4.1. Pro: Climate change is [already](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/06/us-mexico-immigration-climate-change-migration) pushing Central American migrants to the US; this is likely to put an economic strain on the country in the long term.
1.1.5.3.3.4.1.1. Pro: The average temperature in Central America has [increased](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/06/us-mexico-immigration-climate-change-migration) by 0.5 C since 1950; it is projected to rise another 1-2 degrees before 2050.
1.1.5.3.4. Con: The $93 trillion figure is arrived at via broad and multi-layered estimations. For example, the estimated cost of guaranteeing jobs is "[$6.8 to 44.6 trillion](https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-green-new-deal-scope-scale-and-implications/)." Such sweeping estimations make this research imprecise and less informative.
1.1.6. Con: If the US can win the race to build the infrastructure to manufacture climate technologies, then it will have an [advantage in the future global economy](https://medium.com/otherlab-news/green-new-deal-how-much-does-fixing-climate-change-cost-the-us-d542bb9e67c8).
1.1.6.1. Pro: The uncertainty of future supplies of fossil fuels means that those countries which adopt non-carbon technology [will have](https://globaledge.msu.edu/blog/post/1493/the-many-benefits-of-clean-technology) an economic edge in the coming years.
1.1.6.1.1. Pro: Fossil fuels increasingly offer a poor return on energy investment; it is [projected](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190711114846.htm#targetText=A%20new%20study%2C%20co%2Dauthored,in%20the%20case%20of%20electricity.) that this trend is likely to continue with time.
1.1.6.1.2. Pro: A growth of fossil-free energy supplies has already [given](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-30/fossil-free-energy-supply-gives-sweden-edge-in-green-steel-race) Sweden an edge in some manufacturing sectors.
1.1.6.2. Con: Some experts have questioned the value of green technology in creating sustainable economic growth, examining the current state of '[eco-villages](https://theconversation.com/if-everyone-lived-in-an-ecovillage-the-earth-would-still-be-in-trouble-43905)' to conclude that climate control and economic growth are being traded off to varying degrees in each case.
1.1.6.3. Pro: Research finds that countries which develop a comparative advantage in greener goods and services will benefit from improved terms of trade and thus higher real incomes due to the rising global demand for such products \([Fankhauser, p. 903-904](https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0959378013000812?token=EA5CB5875159C7C17EBE5CE9D00C88655E6DC745825C429DE8D8F1BF7E6D9F23C9622B04F8A12B50DD809B54695A0141)\).
1.1.7. Con: Continuing on the 'business as usual' trajectory is not a preferable option for the US economy. Climate change creates a [drag on global economic growth](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-climate-benefits-of-the-green-new-deal/), including in the US.
1.1.7.1. Pro: 'Business as usual' climate change projections indicate that warmer temperatures will [lower annual economic growth in the US by 0.06-0.16%](https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/nbrnberwo/20750.htm).
1.1.7.1.1. Pro: Rising temperatures, rising sea levels, and more extreme events will increasingly disrupt and damage infrastructure and labor productivity, affecting import and export prices of goods \([National Climate Assessment, p. 25-26](https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/NCA4_2018_FullReport.pdf)\).
1.1.7.1.1.1. Pro: Economic losses arising from climate disruption could reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year by the end of this century in some sectors \([National Climate Assessment, p. 46](https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/NCA4_2018_FullReport.pdf)\).
1.2. Con: The Green New Deal envisions much greater federal involvement in the market economy. However, this is unjustified because the federal government should have minimal involvement in the market.
1.2.1. Con: There is already significant government involvement in the market economy based on US national interests.
1.2.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.5.3.1.1.1.2.1.1.
1.2.1.2. Pro: The current trade war with China is a government practice which hurts [companies](https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/trump-trade-war-fed-report-shows-tariffs-hurt-us-businesses-2019-8-1028453869), but is justified based on [national interest](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-trade-levers-explainer/explainer-u-s-china-trade-war-the-levers-each-country-can-pull-idUSKCN1TT2Q1).
1.2.1.2.1. Con: [Experts](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2182795/us-overreacting-china-threat-yes-beijings-iron-grip-isnt) believe that the US is overreacting to the 'threat' from China, so it may not be as big a security threat as believed.
1.2.1.3. Pro: Federal laws presently exist to restrict [pollution](https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-pollution-prevention-act) by companies in order to protect the environment. The Green New Deal is a natural extension of these policies.
1.2.2. Pro: Americans are [overwhelmingly](https://reason.com/2015/02/12/poll-americans-like-free-markets-more-th/) in favour of a free market economy.
1.2.2.1. Con: The [majority](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/majority-of-americans-support-progressive-policies-such-as-paid-maternity-leave-free-college.html) of Americans support government interventions in the market to guarantee a higher minimum wage and paid maternity leave.
1.2.2.2. Con: A [majority](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/14/most-americans-favor-stricter-environmental-laws-and-regulations/) of Americans favor stricter environmental regulations.
1.2.2.3. Con: A majority of Americans [want more regulation](https://thehill.com/regulation/212537-poll-americans-favor-tougher-banking-regulations) for banks.
1.2.3. Pro: Federal government overreach [threatens](https://fee.org/articles/the-three-most-pressing-threats-to-liberty/) the private liberties of workers and businesspeople in the market economy.
1.2.3.1. Pro: Federal overreach [threatens](https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/defending-the-dream-why-income-inequality-doesnt-threaten-opportunity) the concept of the American Dream, that, through hard work and perseverance, one can achieve economic success.
1.2.3.1.1. Con: The Government has a [vital role](https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-equal-should-opportunities-be) to play in using federal action as a means of guaranteeing equality of opportunity, which is the bedrock of the American Dream.
1.2.3.1.1.1. Pro: The [EEOC](https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/#targetText=We%20also%20work%20to%20prevent,government's%20equal%20employment%20opportunity%20program.) \(Equal Employment Opportunities Commission\) has enacted a range of regulations and monitoring programs to ensure that the opportunity to succeed is available to every American citizen.
1.2.3.1.1.2. Pro: Title IX regulations [passed](http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions#targetText=Title%20IX%20of%20the%20Education,activity%20receiving%20Federal%20financial%20assistance.%22) by the Federal Government - which involved taking away resources concentrated on men in education and distributing them more equitably to women - helped make equality of opportunity possible for women across the United States.
1.2.3.1.1.2.1. Pro: At the time of their enactment, Title IX regulations had also been fiercely [resisted](https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1224&context=djglp) as a sign of government overreach.
1.2.3.1.1.3. Pro: Affirmative action programs - which rely on positive discrimination - are intrinsically [linked](https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-education-affirmative-action-0814-story.html) to the American Dream.
1.2.4. Con: Government intervention in the market is necessary to protect citizen well-being.
1.2.4.1. Pro: It is likely that firms will [exploit consumers](https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5735/economics/should-the-government-intervene-in-the-economy/) in the absence of government intervention.
1.3. Pro: The US Government must follow the will of the American people, who support the Green New Deal.
1.3.1. Con: If Americans become aware of the personal cost of the Green New Deal, they may no longer support it.
1.3.1.1. Con: The US should pass legislation which most benefits the American people, even if such legislation is unpopular.
1.3.1.1.1. Pro: The US Government has historically passed landmark socially progressive legislation which was unpopular at the time.
1.3.1.1.1.1. Pro: The [1964 Civil Rights Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964) - which guaranteed franchise to African American people and outlawed race-based discrimination - [faced](https://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/10/politics/civil-rights-act-interesting-facts/index.html) deep resentment from many segments of the population.
1.3.1.1.2. Pro: The public is often uninformed about the salient aspects of government policy; hence their opinion should not be decisive in instating public policy.
1.3.1.1.2.1. Pro: A host of political scientists over the past century have proven that the public is deeply uninformed and inconsistent on policy issues [\(p. 231-232\)](https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/79139_Chapter_7.pdf).
1.3.1.1.2.2. Pro: A high percentage of the US public was [shown](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-oe-goldberg31jul31-column.html) not to even have a basic understanding of government, its functions and its challenges.
1.3.1.1.2.3. Pro: When policies are put to a ballot-vote, the public at large is likely to reach conclusions that are detrimental to society.
1.3.1.1.2.3.1. Pro: In a [2018 ballot](https://www.fastcompany.com/90264251/why-cant-washington-state-pass-a-carbon-tax), the public voted against a proposal to put a price on carbon in Washington. This meant that oil companies and other significant polluters will continue to pollute the environment and remain unaccountable for it, despite the imminence of severe climate crises.
1.3.1.1.2.4. Pro: In April 2019, close to [half](https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/changes-in-awareness-of-and-support-for-the-green-new-deal-december-2018-to-april-2019/) of Americans had not heard of the Green New Deal.
1.3.1.1.2.5. Con: This logic could be extrapolated to undermine the idea of democracy. To some extent it is essential that the public are involved in the decision making process.
1.3.1.1.2.5.1. Pro: The public are not required to display any knowledge prior to voting in elections.
1.3.1.1.2.5.2. Pro: Government decisions affect the electorate and are paid for, in part, with money they pay in taxation. As such, they should have a say in the decision making process.
1.3.1.1.3. Con: Paternalistically imposing an unpopular policy is unlikely to be sustainable because future parties may undo it. It is better to go with a publicly supported \(and therefore stable\) compromise approach to climate change.
1.3.1.1.4. Con: Paternalism is an affront to liberal democracy, which is wrong irrespective of the motivation.
1.3.1.1.4.1. Con: -> See 1.1.5.3.3.
1.3.1.1.4.2. Pro: Heavily paternalistic policy-making unbalances the relationship between the state and its people that is so important for democracy.
1.3.1.1.4.2.1. Con: If climate change continues, then fear, want, and lawlessness will inevitably ensue. This will lead to heavy-handed government intervention anyway. It is [better to have some paternalism](https://grist.org/climate-energy/paternalism-in-the-age-of-climate-change/) now to avoid it coming in jolts and traumas later.
1.3.1.1.5. Pro: -> See 1.1.5.3.1.1.1.4.
1.3.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.5.3.1.1.1.2.1.
1.3.1.3. Pro: While 70% of Americans want the government to take aggressive action on climate change, [only a third would support an extra tax of $100 a year](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-climatechange-idUSKCN1TR15W?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5d1390c6e256f40001187cb7&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter) for it.
1.3.1.3.1. Con: The budget of the Green New Deal will not just be spent to combat climate change. It also [includes](https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-releases-green-new-deal-outline) provision of 'high-quality healthcare' and 'guaranteed jobs'. Given this benefit, Americans may be willing to pay the $100.
1.3.2. Con: Total opposition to the Green New Deal is at 46%, compared to support at 43% in one [poll](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/22/18510518/green-new-deal-fox-news-poll).
1.3.2.1. Con: It is unclear if this poll should be trusted, as it was conducted by Fox News, which as an organisation is [explicitly opposed](https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-fox-news-green-new-deal-2019-5) to the New Deal.
1.3.2.1.1. Pro: A 2008 study found that [Fox News is dismissive of climate change](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1940161211425410?journalCode=hijb), interviewing a greater ratio of doubters to believers compared to other news channels.
1.3.2.2. Con: Overwhelmingly negative coverage on Fox News has been [instrumental](https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-fox-news-green-new-deal-2019-5) in reducing the initially high public support for the Green New Deal.
1.3.2.2.1. Pro: [56%](https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-fox-news-green-new-deal-2019-5?r=US&IR=T) of Republicans who watch Fox News once a week or less support the Green New Deal.
1.3.2.2.2. Pro: In March 2019, [Fox News aired more](https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-news-discussed-green-new-deal-more-often-cnn-and-msnbc-combined?redirect_source=/blog/2019/04/09/Fox-News-discussed-the-Green-New-Deal-more-often-than-CNN-and-MSNBC-combined/223383) segments on the Green New Deal than CNN and MSNBC combined, and only mentioned the climate crisis 50% of the time.
1.3.2.2.3. Pro: In March 2019, Fox News' coverage included [misinformation and mockery](https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-news-discussed-green-new-deal-more-often-cnn-and-msnbc-combined?redirect_source=/blog/2019/04/09/Fox-News-discussed-the-Green-New-Deal-more-often-than-CNN-and-MSNBC-combined/223383), such as stating that the Green New Deal would ban cars.
1.3.2.2.4. Pro: Fox News viewers are strongly opposed to the Green New Deal, [due](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/22/18510518/green-new-deal-fox-news-poll) to the 'relentless negative coverage' towards Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
1.3.2.3. Con: Republicans have [demonised](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/31/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-aoc-republicans-trump) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the bill's sponsors. If the Green New Deal was sponsored by someone that Republicans are less opposed to, it may be viewed as less controversial.
1.3.2.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.2.2.4.
1.3.3. Pro: [60](https://grist.org/article/poll-the-green-new-deal-is-as-popular-as-legalizing-weed/)% of registered voters support the Green New Deal in one poll.
1.3.3.1. Con: This poll was taken in July 2019, the [hottest month on record](https://time.com/5652972/july-2019-hottest-month/) globally and during an [unprecedented season of Arctic wildfires](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/26/unprecedented-more-than-100-wildfires-burning-in-the-arctic-in-worst-ever-season). Support for the Green New Deal was probably at a temporary high.
1.3.4. Pro: The US Government also has an obligation to future Americans to enact the Green New Deal.
1.3.4.1. Pro: Governments should be responsive to the interests and assumed preferences of future citizens.
1.3.4.1.1. Pro: Each generation is entitled to inherit a planet that is at least in as good a state as that enjoyed by previous generations.
1.3.4.1.1.1. Pro: The [American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Declaration_of_the_Rights_and_Duties_of_Man) protects the dignity of all people and the equality of their rights. This protection extends to both present and future generations \([Weiss, p. 201](https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2639&context=facpub)\).
1.3.4.1.1.1.1. Pro: The [American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Declaration_of_the_Rights_and_Duties_of_Man) is [enforceable](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/vaw/regional/the-americas/the-american-declaration-on-the-rights-and-duties-of-man/), and has been enforced, against the United States.
1.3.4.1.1.2. Pro: The UN [Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generations Towards Future Generations](http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13178&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html#targetText=Article%209%20%E2%80%93%20Peace&targetText=The%20present%20generations%20should%20ensure,generations%20the%20scourge%20of%20war.) aims to safeguard the needs and interests of future generations \(Article 1\), which includes protecting the environment \(Article 5\).
1.3.4.2. Pro: To protect future generations, the government must exert some effort towards attempting to mitigate climate change in form of policy such as the Green New Deal.
1.3.4.2.1. Pro: Future generations are likely to be against bad outcomes \(such as those stemming from climate change\). Hence, they are likely to support policy attempts which address climate change, such as the Green New Deal.
1.3.4.2.2. Con: The Green New Deal isn't the only policy that can satisfy the moral obligation to future Americans; there are other policies which can address the issue of climate change.
1.3.5. Pro: The Green New Deal is [popular among almost all demographics](https://grist.org/article/poll-the-green-new-deal-is-as-popular-as-legalizing-weed/) across America.
1.3.5.1. Pro: The Green New Deal enjoys significant [support](https://grist.org/article/poll-the-green-new-deal-is-as-popular-as-legalizing-weed/) from people with and without college degrees, whites and people of color, urban and rural Americans, and people who earn less than and more than $50,000 a year.
1.3.6. Pro: The Green New Deal has garnered [popular bipartisan support](https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/the-green-new-deal-has-strong-bipartisan-support/) across the United States; this is likely to guarantee the further exploration, and successful implementation, of the Green New Deal.
1.3.6.1. Pro: Due to the high levels of public support, many politicians across the US have come up with [other variants](https://www.thebalance.com/green-new-deal-4582071) on the Green New Deal. This growing trend is likely to help in implementing the goals of the current Green New Deal proposal.
1.3.6.1.1. Pro: 2020 Presidential race [front-runner](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/16/bernie-sanders-leads-2020-democratic-field-among-college-students-poll) for the Democrat Party, US Senator Bernie Sanders has [released](https://berniesanders.com/issues/the-green-new-deal/) his own version of the Green New Deal.
1.3.6.1.1.1. Pro: The newer version has been [seen](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/8/23/20828842/bernie-sanders-electric-school-buses) by some as an improvement to, and building upon, the original Green New Deal.
1.3.6.1.2. Pro: New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo has [announced](https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-green-new-deal-included-2019-executive-budget?wpisrc=nl_energy202&wpmm=1) a Green New Deal for the state's 2019 executive budget, which would make electric generation carbon-free by 2040, create a council to do the same for the state's entire economy and allocate funds for low-income communities that suffer the most from climate change.
1.3.6.1.3. Pro: 2020 presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke has [announced](https://www.wsj.com/articles/beto-orourke-aligns-himself-with-green-new-deal-in-first-major-policy-proposal-11556559187) that he would spend $5 trillion over the next 10 years to build infrastructure, devise a federal law for zero carbon emissions by 2050 and reduce methane leakage from the oil industry.
1.3.6.2. Pro: There are [43 members of Congress](https://www.thebalance.com/green-new-deal-4582071) who support the proposal for a Select Committee for a Green New Deal.
1.4. Pro: The Green New Deal would [decarbonise](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/12/why-some-us-democrats-want-a-green-new-deal-to-tackle-climate-change) the US economy by 2030, which is necessary to address the [growing crisis](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html) posed by climate change.
1.4.1. Con: The Green New Deal would be ineffective in fighting climate change.
1.4.1.1. Con: Prominent climate experts such as [Al Gore](https://www.axios.com/al-gore-on-board-with-green-new-deal-climate-change-poland-e28b5fb7-9a55-4751-8d0e-c12cd6d71939.html) and [Joseph Stiglitz](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/04/climate-change-world-war-iii-green-new-deal) have come out in support of the Green New Deal, believing it to be an effective set of measures against climate change
1.4.1.2. Con: The Green New Deal creates incentives for further efforts against climate change.
1.4.1.2.1. Pro: The Green New Deal has [signaled](https://time.com/5555721/green-new-deal-climate-change/) a significant shift in political discussions, forcing politicians to finally address climate change.
1.4.1.2.2. Pro: In the wake of the Green New Deal's introduction in the US, several other [countries](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/23/international-green-new-deal-climate-change-global-response) have proposed their own versions of the Green New Deal, and there have been calls for the creation of an International Green New Deal.
1.4.1.3. Pro: Despite its best efforts, the US alone cannot successfully fight climate change.
1.4.1.3.1. Con: The Green New Deal has helped inspire and educate other countries across the world about the imminent need for, and possible route towards, climate change legislation.
1.4.1.3.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.4.1.2.2.
1.4.1.3.1.2. Pro: By [investing](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/7/11/20688611/climate-change-research-development-innovation?fbclid=IwAR3Bgkj8FIeekLYNOs8EEBjn167eniD97QWsvODdKMZjm4j8uJ5h5rs98cE) in clean energy research and development, the US can create green technologies that can be used worldwide to curb emissions.
1.4.1.3.1.2.1. Pro: In the US, government investment in innovation has [contributed](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/11/20/18104206/solar-panels-cost-cheap-mit-clean-energy-policy) to a massive global decline in the cost of solar panels. This has lead to the rapid adoption of solar power worldwide.
1.4.1.3.1.2.1.1. Pro: The solar power industry is growing in India. In [2015](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_India#Electricity_generation), 118,700 home solar units, 46,655 solar street lamps and 1 million solar lanterns were installed, leading to a significant reduction in kerosene burning.
1.4.1.3.1.2.1.2. Pro: Since 2013, [China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China) has been the world's leading installer of [solar photovoltaics](https://www.studentenergy.org/topics/solar-pv).
1.4.1.3.2. Pro: Even if the US cuts its CO2 emissions by 100%, global temperatures will only be reduced by 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100 \([Dayaratna, p. 7](https://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY18/20170228/105632/HHRG-115-SY18-Wstate-DayaratnaK-20170228.pdf)\). With global temperatures currently on course to rise by [3-5 degrees Celsius](https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-un/global-temperatures-on-track-for-3-5-degree-rise-by-2100-u-n-idUKKCN1NY186) by that time, this amounts to a reduction of only 4-6.6% globally.
1.4.1.3.3. Pro: By 2040, it is estimated that [75%](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/7/11/20688611/climate-change-research-development-innovation?fbclid=IwAR3Bgkj8FIeekLYNOs8EEBjn167eniD97QWsvODdKMZjm4j8uJ5h5rs98cE) of global emissions will come from emerging economies such as China and India. Therefore, the Green New Deal will not significantly reduce global emissions.
1.4.1.3.4. Con: If the US is aggressive in adopting policies to limit its carbon emissions, this bolsters its [moral position](https://www.wri.org/blog/2012/12/what-equity-context-climate-negotiations) to place pressure on other countries to do the same.
1.4.1.3.5. Con: -> See 1.4.1.3.1.2.
1.4.1.4. Pro: There is no US policy that would be effective against climate change; climate change is inevitable.
1.4.1.4.1. Con: One of the [main intentions](https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/what-is-the-green-new-deal) behind the Green New Deal is to implement [adaptation strategies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_adaptation), in order to better equip the government to deal with some of the inevitable repercussions of climate change.
1.4.1.4.2. Con: Even if this is true, considering how harmful the impacts of climate change are likely to be in the coming years, it is desirable to delay these inevitable impacts for as long as possible. The Green New Deal helps achieve this goal.
1.4.1.4.3. Pro: Scientists have found that greenhouse gases levels are so high that their [warming effects would persist](https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-would-we-stop-climate-change-78882) even if levels stabilised now.
1.4.1.4.4. Con: While climate change will be felt for centuries to come, reducing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could eventually [reverse some of the most troublesome effects of warming](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/science/climate-change-doom.html).
1.4.1.4.5. Con: New and developing technologies have the potential to reverse climate change.
1.4.1.4.5.1. Con: [Climate scientists](https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/future-technology-cannot-rescue-mankind-climate-change-global-warming-a8187806.html) have concluded that it will be difficult to use CO2 removing technology on a very large scale, which would be necessary to make a significant change to climate change.
1.4.1.4.5.1.1. Pro: Direct air capture of carbon is [difficult](https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/09/6-ways-remove-carbon-pollution-sky) to do on a large scale because the technology is very expensive and also requires substantial heat and power inputs.
1.4.1.4.5.1.2. Pro: Carbon capture using plants and soil is [difficult](https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/09/6-ways-remove-carbon-pollution-sky) to do on a large scale because it requires alot of space and may interfere with other agricultural processes such as food production.
1.4.1.4.5.1.3. Pro: Other carbon capture methods such as ocean alkalinization and ocean fertilization have yet to be [trialed](https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/11/27/carbon-dioxide-removal-climate-change/) on a large scale, due to cost, energy and ecological concerns.
1.4.1.4.5.1.3.1. Pro: Ocean [fertilization](https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/11/27/carbon-dioxide-removal-climate-change/) has less potential to reduce carbon emissions over the long term.
1.4.1.4.5.2. Pro: As of 2017, 21 commercial-scale carbon capture [projects](https://www.businessinsider.com/geoengineering-how-to-reverse-climate-change-2019-4?r=US&IR=T#captured-carbon-could-also-get-stored-in-containers-filled-with-carbon-dioxide-eating-or-converting-algae-and-bacteria-4) were operating and a further 22 were in development.
1.4.1.4.5.3. Con: The IPCC [reports](https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf) that even after the implementation of these technologies, as well as the achievement by many countries to reach net-zero carbon emissions, there is only a 50% chance of keeping global warming to 1.5ºC \(p. 14\).
1.4.1.4.5.4. Pro: [Modified agricultural practices](https://theconversation.com/why-we-cant-reverse-climate-change-with-negative-emissions-technologies-103504) like no-till farming increases carbon storage in soils and thus reduce atmospheric carbon levels [\(p. 76\)](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/34cf/1f0ef19f5c65d2101a7e28a9715521d934c0.pdf).
1.4.1.4.5.4.1. Con: No-till farming has its [limitations](https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/06/02/no-till-agriculture-offers-vast-sustainability-benefits-so-why-do-organic-farmers-reject-it/) because some important crop, like potatoes, need to be planted on tilled lands.
1.4.1.4.5.5. Con: Technologies which have the potential to reverse climate change are [expensive](https://theconversation.com/why-we-cant-reverse-climate-change-with-negative-emissions-technologies-103504) to implement, even when they have been tested on a small scale.
1.4.1.4.5.5.1. Con: -> See 1.1.5.3.3.
1.4.1.4.5.5.2. Pro: The costs of [direct air capture](https://theconversation.com/why-we-cant-reverse-climate-change-with-negative-emissions-technologies-103504), which has been tested at small scales, are on the order of hundreds of dollars or more per ton of CO2.
1.4.1.4.5.5.3. Pro: The cost of adopting [Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage \(BECCS\)](https://theconversation.com/why-we-cant-reverse-climate-change-with-negative-emissions-technologies-103504) falls within the range of US$100-200 per ton of CO2 removed.
1.4.1.4.5.5.4. Pro: -> See 1.4.1.4.5.1.1.
1.4.1.4.5.6. Con: A study [showed](https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/17/the-dirty-secret-of-the-paris-climate-deal-carbon-capture-negative-emissions-global-warming/) that there is no [Negative Emission Technology](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969719315177) \(NET\) currently available that could be implemented to meet the \< 2°C target without significantly impacting either land, energy or water resources.
1.4.1.4.5.7. Pro: New technology can now [remove CO2 from the atmosphere](https://www.climeworks.com/).
1.4.1.4.5.7.1. Pro: Adding alkalinity to the oceans can [pull carbon](https://theconversation.com/why-we-cant-reverse-climate-change-with-negative-emissions-technologies-103504) from the atmosphere via chemical reactions.
1.4.1.4.5.7.2. Pro: [Direct air capture](https://theconversation.com/why-we-cant-reverse-climate-change-with-negative-emissions-technologies-103504) involves the removal of carbon dioxide from the ambient air via engineered systems.
1.4.1.4.5.7.2.1. Pro: The [global potential](https://www.gasworld.com/a-technology-to-reverse-climate-change/2015576.article) of Direct Air Capture and Storage \(DACS\) technology for the permanent removal of atmospheric CO2 is enormous. This is because not only is the land and water-use very low for DACS, but [Climeworks plants](https://www.climeworks.com/our-products/) can be implemented anywhere where basalt rock \(or other CO2 storage possibilities\) and renewable energy sources are available.
1.4.1.4.5.7.3. Pro: A company called [Blue Planet](http://www.blueplanet-ltd.com/#targetText=Blue%20carbon%20is%20captured%20naturally,into%20carbon%20negative%20building%20materials.) can capture carbon dioxide, convert it into bicarbonate, and then use it to make building materials.
1.4.1.4.6. Pro: [Research](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/13/arctic-temperature-rises-must-be-urgently-tackled-warns-un) shows that sharp and potentially devastating temperature rises of 3 to 5 degree Celsius in the Arctic are inevitable even if the world succeeds in cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with the [Paris Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement).
1.4.1.5. Pro: The Green New Deal is not radical enough to tackle climate change.
1.4.1.5.1. Pro: Many believe that the Green New Deal does not address the root causes within capitalism which need to change in order to combat climate change.
1.4.1.5.1.1. Pro: The Green New Deal does not do enough to tackle the largest polluters, namely large corporations. These should be made into [public utilities](https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/08/will-a-green-new-deal-save-the-climate-or-save-capitalism/) in order to prevent private, profit-driven interest from engaging in policies which hurt the environment.
1.4.1.5.2. Pro: The Green New Deal [does not include](https://www.thebalance.com/green-new-deal-4582071) a carbon tax or a cap and trade program, which are needed to effectively ensure the reduction of carbon emissions.
1.4.1.5.2.1. Con: Carbon taxes or a cap and trade program have other social costs.
1.4.1.5.2.1.1. Pro: The taxes and carbon-based regulations alone would lead to a $40,000 income loss for a family of four by 2040 due to rising energy bills \([Loris, p.3](https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO28/20190409/109294/HMTG-116-GO28-Wstate-LorisN-20190409.pdf)\).
1.4.1.5.2.1.1.1. Con: This cost estimate is partially based on instituting a [carbon tax](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/39-trillion-what-aocs-green-new-deal-would-cost-you-67087) which is not explicitly required by a Green New Deal.
1.4.1.5.2.2. Con: Even if the Green New Deal does not include carbon taxes or caps, there are [independent efforts](https://thinkprogress.org/carbon-fee-pricing-oregon-b5d171108dad/) by many groups in the US towards this policy. These efforts, combined with the Green New Deal, will cause significant reduction in the environmental damage being caused.
1.4.1.5.2.2.1. Con: The oil industry in the US has successfully spent millions of dollars to fight against carbon taxes being imposed on companies in [Washington and Colorado](https://thinkprogress.org/washington-colorado-big-oil-spending-ballot-initiatives-1b0620a1cc16/).
1.4.1.5.2.2.1.1. Con: The efforts by lawmakers across many states in the US are more likely to be [successful](https://thinkprogress.org/carbon-fee-pricing-oregon-b5d171108dad/) than those in Washington and Colorado \(which used ballot initiatives\), as these carbon pricing efforts are likely in the form of legislation crafted by lawmakers rather than through ballot initiatives.
1.4.1.5.2.2.2. Pro: Several lawmakers are working towards the introduction of carbon taxes and carbon caps in many US states.
1.4.1.5.2.2.2.1. Pro: Environmentalists and lawmakers in [Oregon](https://thinkprogress.org/carbon-fee-pricing-oregon-b5d171108dad/) and a slew of states along the East Coast are already looking at future carbon pricing options, with many favoring cap-and-trade legislation in their states.
1.4.1.5.2.2.2.2. Pro: Lawmakers in several US states including New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Vermont [aim to introduce](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-carbontax-analysis/after-defeat-in-west-u-s-carbon-tax-push-looks-east-idUSKCN1ND1PT) carbon pricing legislation, including carbon taxes and market-based carbon cap-and-trade measures.
1.4.1.5.2.2.3. Pro: In the [Northeastern United States](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/02/climate/pricing-carbon-emissions.html), nine states have set a cap on emissions from the power sector and require companies to buy tradeable pollution permits.
1.4.1.5.2.2.4. Pro: [California's emissions](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/climate/california-climate-policy-cap-trade.html) are nearly back to 1990 levels, after the implementation of a successful carbon '[cap-and-trade](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-californias-new-cap-and-trade-scheme-to-cut-emissions)' scheme. It barely uses any coal and it has installed as many solar panels as the rest of the country combined.
1.4.1.5.2.3. Pro: The [High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices](https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/highlevel-economic-commission-1) [estimates](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ff9c5ce4b0a53decccfb4c/t/59b7f2409f8dce5316811916/1505227332748/CarbonPricing_FullReport.pdf) that achieving carbon-free goals requires a carbon price of $40-$80/tCO2 by 2020, rising to $50-$100/tCO2 by 2030 \(p. 3\).
1.4.1.5.2.4. Pro: Carbon taxes or cap and trade programs increase the [price](https://www.thebalance.com/green-new-deal-4582071) of [carbon fuels](https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/hidden-cost-of-fossils), making them more expensive to consume. This expense leads to many companies and consumers abandoning the use of these fuels.
1.4.1.5.2.4.1. Con: [Studies](https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-pricing-popular) of human behaviour suggest that price increases in carbon-intensive products via carbon taxes will not be enough to incentivize consumers to shift away from certain emissions-intensive lifestyles.
1.4.1.5.2.5. Pro: Carbon taxes make sure companies and consumers pay for the [external costs](https://www.thebalance.com/carbon-tax-definition-how-it-works-4158043) they impose on society. In the absence of these taxes, companies and consumers will continue to contribute towards global warming without paying the cost of damage.
1.4.1.6. Pro: The Green New Deal sets an [overly](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/us/politics/green-new-deal.html) ambitious goal of making the US carbon neutral by 2030, which experts believe is not feasible.
1.4.1.6.1. Pro: As of 2017, only [11%](https://www.thebalance.com/renewable-energy-industry-current-state-trends-outlook-4684187) of America's current energy needs were being met by renewable energy.
1.4.1.6.2. Con: America's renewable energy capacity has already started to grow significantly.
1.4.1.6.2.1. Pro: In April 2019, [23%](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/renewables-beat-coal-in-the-u-s-for-the-first-time-this-april/) of American electricity was generated from renewable sources - the first time electricity from renewable energy exceeded electricity generated from coal.
1.4.1.6.3. Pro: [A Renewable Electricity Study](https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/increase-renewables/renewable-energy-80-percent-us-electricity.html) found that it is feasible to switch 80% of US electricity generation to renewable sources by 2050. It seems unlikely that it would be feasible to do this 20 years faster.
1.4.1.6.3.1. Pro: [Experts](https://www.npr.org/2019/07/08/739643772/experts-say-u-s-power-grid-needs-to-change-before-shifting-to-all-renewable-ener) say that further technological development is needed to create technology which can transfer renewable energy across long distances. It is impossible to know how long that technological innovation will take.
1.4.1.6.4. Con: The Green New Deal would also require the US to [stop nuclear powered energy production](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a26255413/green-new-deal-nuclear-power/), which would hamper the US ability to transition to zero carbon sources.
1.4.1.6.4.1. Pro: [20%](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/us/politics/green-new-deal.html) of zero carbon electricity in the US is currently generated by nuclear powered energy production.
1.4.1.6.4.2. Pro: If all existing nuclear plants are kept online, the US can rise to about [44%](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/us/politics/green-new-deal.html) clean energy by 2030.
1.4.1.6.4.3. Pro: Nuclear energy is a valuable source of clean energy.
1.4.1.6.4.3.1. Pro: Nuclear power plants can [produce](https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate) enormous amounts of energy with no carbon emissions.
1.4.1.6.4.3.2. Pro: Nuclear energy can be generated more [consistently](https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate) compared to other sources of renewable energy.
1.4.1.6.4.3.2.1. Pro: US hydroelectric systems only deliver [38.2%](https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate) of the time, wind turbines deliver 34.5% of the time and solar electricity 25.1% of the time. In comparison, nuclear energy delivers 92.3% of the time.
1.4.1.6.4.3.2.2. Pro: The amount of power wasted by other \(non-nuclear\) renewable energy is [60% - 130%](https://www.thirdway.org/blog/nuclear-renewables-the-ultimate-power-couple-we-think-so) of total electricity demand.
1.4.1.6.4.3.2.2.1. Pro: Using only renewable energy requires building enough wind or solar plants to meet the greatest level of [demand](https://www.thirdway.org/blog/nuclear-renewables-the-ultimate-power-couple-we-think-so). When demand is lower this extra power is wasted.
1.4.1.6.4.3.3. Pro: Research has found that including nuclear energy in America's clean energy infrastructure could save up to [$500 billion](https://www.thirdway.org/blog/nuclear-renewables-the-ultimate-power-couple-we-think-so) on the cost of switching to renewable energy.
1.4.1.6.4.3.4. Con: Building nuclear energy power plants is extremely [expensive](https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-us-france-korea) with each one costing between $5 and $10 billion.
1.4.1.6.4.3.5. Con: There are significant [safety concerns](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/nuclear-power-safety-concerns) regarding the use of nuclear power.
1.4.1.7. Con: The Green New Deal is the climate policy most likely to be successful as it utilizes an economy wide approach rather than a sector specific approach to climate change.
1.4.1.7.1. Pro: The Green New Deal can gain [political support](https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/429652-green-new-deal-is-good-economics) by building support behind the story of economic growth and opportunity.
1.4.1.7.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.
1.4.1.7.1.2. Pro: It is important to tie climate change proposals to a stronger economy because this undermines the false [dichotomy](https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/california-fire-democrats-control-house-it-s-time-get-serious-ncna936976) of jobs vs environment which is used to oppose climate change policies.
1.4.1.7.1.2.1. Pro: The [controversy](https://www.npr.org/2011/11/03/141958694/pipeline-decision-pits-jobs-against-environment) over the Keystone oil pipeline centered around the jobs it would create versus the environmental impact.
1.4.1.7.2. Pro: Economic theory suggests that policies work best when they are [tailored](https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/429652-green-new-deal-is-good-economics) to the behavior they seek to change. Therefore, funding innovation is more effective in producing green technology than punishing emitters is.
1.4.1.7.3. Con: An economy wide approach may distract from the environmental focus.
1.4.1.7.3.1. Pro: Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi has [criticized](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/nancy-pelosi-trump-interview-797209/) the Green New Deal for not being focused enough on climate issues.
1.4.1.7.3.2. Pro: The Green New Deal currently proposes goals such as guaranteed income and [universal healthcare](https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf) \(p. 13\) which have caused it to be labelled [socialist](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/09/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal.html). This may undermine the policy program.
1.4.1.7.3.2.1. Pro: A [majority](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/442292-poll-majority-view-socialism-as-incompatible-with-american-values) of Americans say socialism is incompatible with American values.
1.4.1.7.3.2.2. Pro: This bolsters the right wing narrative that climate change is an [excuse](https://www.salon.com/2019/03/03/the-green-new-deal-just-focus-on-what-we-do-not-how-we-pay-for-it_partner/) by the left to push it's agenda rather than a concern in its own right.
1.4.1.7.3.3. Pro: By including such a wide range of policy proposals the Green New Deal undermines the rhetoric of the [unique emergency](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/07/green-new-deal-224928) posed by climate change.
1.4.1.7.4. Con: Americans appear to prefer climate [policy kludges](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/midterms-2018-now-nobody-has-perfect-climate-strategy/575422/) - policies that singularly help one technology or explicitly ban another rather than seeking to reconfigure the entire economy.
1.4.1.8. Pro: The Green New Deal does is simply a congressional resolution, it has no efficacy.
1.4.1.8.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.3.
1.4.1.8.2. Con: -> See 1.1.2.3.2.
1.4.1.9. Pro: Many of the measures proposed within the Green New Deal, such as investing in infrastructure and spreading wealth more evenly, intrinsically work in [tension](https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/03/07/green-new-deal-contains-tension-climate-social-goals/) with efforts to decarbonise the economy.
1.4.1.9.1. Pro: The [goals](https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/03/07/green-new-deal-contains-tension-climate-social-goals/) of the Green New Deal create a dynamic that increases energy use at the same time as other parts of the Deal are trying to reduce it.
1.4.1.9.1.1. Pro: Building infrastructure such as new road networks will both create [demand](https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/03/07/green-new-deal-contains-tension-climate-social-goals/) for carbon-intensive cement manufacture and incentives for more people to travel by car.
1.4.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.3.1.
1.4.3. Pro: -> See 1.1.5.3.3.2.
1.4.4. Pro: -> See 1.1.5.3.3.3.
1.4.5. Pro: -> See 1.1.5.3.3.4.
1.5. Pro: The Green New Deal would benefit workers struggling in the current economy.
1.5.1. Pro: The Green New Deal would [guarantee every American a green job](https://therealnews.com/stories/why-the-green-new-deal-includes-a-jobs-guarantee) and having this job guarantee would be good for ordinary American workers.
1.5.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.
1.5.1.2. Con: The job guarantee promised in the Green New Deal is unfeasible.
1.5.1.2.1. Pro: The Economist has [referred](https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2019/02/11/the-problem-with-the-green-new-deal) to the job guarantee pledge in the Green New Deal as 'beautifully utopian', arguing that while such a job guarantee would be beneficial, it is impossible to implement.
1.5.1.2.2. Pro: Economists [say](https://psmag.com/economics/will-the-green-new-deal-work-heres-what-the-research-says) it is challenging to transition workers whose jobs have become irrelevant to new careers.
1.5.1.2.2.1. Pro: Job-retraining programs have historically had [little success](https://psmag.com/economics/will-the-green-new-deal-work-heres-what-the-research-says) in the United States.
1.5.1.2.3. Pro: If new green energy turns out to be [more expensive](https://psmag.com/economics/will-the-green-new-deal-work-heres-what-the-research-says) than electricity is now, people and companies may be inclined to use less of it and thereby create fewer jobs.
1.5.1.2.4. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.3.3.
1.5.1.3. Pro: -> See 1.1.5.1.
1.5.2. Con: The Green New Deal has little support from these same workers; national labor union leaders [oppose](https://www.vox.com/2019/5/22/18628299/green-new-deal-labor-union-2020-democrats) the Green New Deal.
1.5.2.1. Pro: The national AFL-CIO — the largest federation of labor unions in the United States, representing more than 12.5 million workers — recently [has](https://www.vox.com/2019/5/22/18628299/green-new-deal-labor-union-2020-democrats) come out against the proposal.
1.5.2.1.1. Pro: A [March letter](http://inthesetimes.com/features/green-new-deal-worker-transition-jobs-plan.html) by ten unions on the AFL-CIO’s energy committee said that, while energy efficiency initiatives and strong labor standards were needed, the Green New Deal resolution is “far too short on specific solutions” and “could cause immediate harm to millions of our members and their families.”
1.5.2.1.1.1. Con: -> See 1.1.2.3.2.
1.5.2.2. Pro: Labor groups are [upset](https://www.vox.com/2019/5/22/18628299/green-new-deal-labor-union-2020-democrats) they weren’t at the table during the drafting of the Green New Deal.
1.5.3. Con: Some labor leaders [believe](https://www.vox.com/2019/5/22/18628299/green-new-deal-labor-union-2020-democrats) the Green New Deal would mean that everyone in the coal industry would lose their jobs, and that there would be a rapid loss of jobs for those in the natural gas industry.
1.5.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.3.
1.5.4. Pro: The Green New Deal would allow for a ["just transition"](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/12/21/18144138/green-new-deal-alexandria-ocasio-cortez) so that historically marginalized communities who will be hurt by climate change are in fact benefited by the process of decarbonizing the economy.
1.5.4.1. Pro: Poor counties will suffer an economic burden roughly five times that of rich counties as a result of climate change \([Duffy, p. 8](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/363/6427/eaat5982.full.pdf)\).
1.5.5. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.
1.5.6. Con: A new study released by a libertarian think tank [found](https://cei.org/content/what-green-new-deal-could-cost-typical-household) that the GND would have significant costs for an average American household.
1.5.6.1. Pro: To provide a broad estimate of just a fraction of what the Green New Deal would cost, [Heritage analysts](https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/glimpse-what-the-green-new-deal-would-cost-taxpayers) modeled the implementation of a $54 carbon tax, phased in by 2021. This will increase the prices of [goods and services](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-carbon-tax) \(e.g. gasoline and electricity\) for American households.
1.5.6.1.1. Con: [The Heritage Foundation is founded on libertarian values](https://www.heritage.org/about-heritage/mission) of free enterprise and limited government, so its conclusions on the Green New Deal may be politically biased \(and therefore unreliable\).
1.5.6.1.1.1. Pro: The Green New Deal proposes to [massively expand government](https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-radical-front-nationalizing-our), which goes against a key tenet of libertarianism.
1.5.6.2. Pro: The average American household in Florida, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Pennsylvania would be required to pay more than [$70,000](https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/aoc-green-new-deal-cost-american-household) during the first year of the GND plan being implemented.
1.5.6.3. Pro: Families in Alaska would face higher costs compared to other states. During the first year, residents would pay more than [$100,000](https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/aoc-green-new-deal-cost-american-household) – followed by $73,000 for the following four years and more than $67,000 after that.
1.5.6.4. Pro: -> See 1.4.1.5.2.1.1.
1.5.6.5. Con: -> See 1.1.5.1.
1.5.6.6. Con: Since this think tank is politically [libertarian](https://cei.org/about-cei), it probably [already ideologically opposes](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/no-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-you-do-not-have-a-lot-of-common-ground-with-libertarians) the GND \(which involves significant state intervention\). Therefore, its findings against the GND may not be reliable.
1.5.6.6.1. Pro: -> See 1.5.6.1.1.1.
1.5.7. Pro: Getting paid a living wage would be good for workers.
1.5.7.1. Pro: Working a living wage job in the US has non-financial benefits.
1.5.7.1.1. Pro: Living wage jobs also improve the [well-being of employees](https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ER-03-2017-0071/full/html), and provide them with feelings of job satisfaction, equity, and security.
1.5.7.1.2. Pro: A 2005 [study](http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/livingwageforfamilies/legacy_url/132/2.-How-Living-Wages-Benefit-Employers.pdf?1459972063) found that living wage contractors provide more employee training and lower overtime and turnover rates than non-living wage employers.
1.5.7.2. Pro: Many workers will be able to send their children to [school](https://www.ethicaltrade.org/issues/living-wage-workers) if they are paid a living wage.
1.5.7.3. Con: As of 2017, only [12.3%](https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-263.html) of workers were living below the poverty line in the US, so investing in a living wage is not a priority.
1.5.7.4. Pro: Even when factoring in reductions in employment rates, living wages can lift families above the poverty line \([Adams & Neumark, p. 9](https://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cep/EP_705SAEP.pdf)\).
1.5.7.4.1. Con: There are structural reasons due to which it might not be possible to lift people out of poverty even when they are paid a living wage \([p. 13](https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/causes-of-poverty.pdf)\).